CHAPTER Origin of Employee Engagement

Transcription

1 CHAPTER Origin of Employee Engagement For the past several years, Employee Engagement has been a hot topic and the buzz word in Human Resource study and also in the corporate circles. A review of recent history helps to clarify why it is so popular today. Before 1980 s employers expected loyalty in exchange of commitment of the employees and they offer lifetime employment. Then in 1980 s revolution had started regarding flexibility in all issues because of globalization. Organizations were closed where wages were lower, then the rules of the game changed. Leaders in business initiated the evolution. The workforce had changed, employers wanted it to change. In this situation high quality talent left the organization and productivity suffered, skilled employees were not willing to work overtime and do not want to invest extra effort which leads to decrease in productivity. This situation motivated companies to explore some new initiatives to increase productivity and improve employee performance. Employee Engagement movement arrived as a way to solve both employee and employer problems. Even in the 21 st century in spite of providing good package and benefits, many organizations are losing top performers without any obvious reasons. Though, employee turnover is normal, if an organization is truly engaging its employees, the possibility of unexpected loss of skilled, experienced and motivated quality workforce is less. Employee Engagement movement arrived as a way to solve both employee and employer problems and it is arguably the most critical metric for organizations in this century. The term Employee Engagement has been written broadly in Workforce Magazine[1], Harvard Business Review and the Washington Post (Sources quoted by Little)[2] and some researching firms such as DDI [3] and Towers Perrin[4]. In fact, there are many pathways to encourage Engagement, however only one kit does not fit to all the organizations. While each organization may define Employee Engagement differently, ultimately, the key to effective Engagement will be rooted in the flexibility of approach most appropriate for each individual firm. Employee Engagement is defined as the extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organization, how hard they work and how long they stay as a result of that commitment. [5]

2 2 The term Employee Engagement was introduced by Gallup Organization, from past 30 years they are continuously surveying employees and employers and the results are fascinating. According to Gallup report, Employee Engagement has a direct relationship with productivity, profitability and employee retention (Buckingham & Coffman [6]; Coffman & Gonzalez-Molina, [7]). But there are no relationships with other elements like Job satisfaction (Fisher & Locke [8]). By using Gallup research most of the companies found Employee Engagement and also took certain measures to improve Employee Engagement. After a huge research, Gallup organization published a book First, Break all the Rules, and initiated some standard questions to find the level of Employee Engagement. Employees who score high in this Gallup questionnaire exhibit high level of Engagement whereas who score low exhibit low level of Engagement. Gallup research has also published second book Follow This Path (Coffman & Gonzalez-Molina 2002) conclude that Engagement is how employee feel but not how employee think. According to this second book, Employees who are engaged in the organizations are fuel and also increases productivity and profitability (p. 26). They divided employees into three categories. They are: 1. Engaged Employees who are engaged work with zeal and enthusiasm, they go extra mile for the organizational growth. 2. Non-Engaged or Disengaged- Employees who are non-engaged won t use their heart and mind; simply they want to complete their day without passion towards job. 3. Actively Disengaged:- Employees who are actively disengaged are unhappy at work and transfer the same to other employees too. Organizations which are booming today take pleasure to implement Employee Engagement strategies. Implementing Employee Engagement strategies in the organization is not an easy aspect because one fit does not match to all organizations and also employers face many difficulties and challenges to execute. Most of the organizations copy Employee Engagement activities among the best practices of the top companies, because engaged employees highly contribute to the profits of the organization. Organizations continuously strive to keep its employees engaged in implementing several strategies according to corporate culture.

3 3 In 2008 as there was a serious recession worldwide, this made companies to take most horrible decisions. During these situations, organizations need to concentrate on Employee Engagement, which ultimately leads to increased productivity, profitability and reduces attrition. 1.2 Definitions of Employee Engagement 1. Kahn (1990) defined Engagement as, the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles. [9]. 2. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) define Employee Engagement as individual s satisfaction and involvement. (p. 269). [10] 3. The International Survey Research (ISR) defines Employee Engagement as, a process by which an organization increases commitment and continuation of its employees to the achievement of superior results.. [11] 4. DDI (2005) uses the definition The extent to which people value, enjoy and believe in what they do (p1). DDI also states that its measure is similar to employee satisfaction and loyalty. [12] 5. Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) define Engagement as a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its values.[13] The existence of different definitions makes the state of knowledge of Employee Engagement difficult to determine as each study examines Employee Engagement under a different practice. According to Ferguson[14], several efforts were made by different authors to identify Employee Engagement universally measured and defined. 1.3 Burnout and Engagement The term Burnout has originally been used for helping professions (Rothmann[15]), but now it is expanded to all types of professions and occupational groups. Burnout is defined as a persistent, negative, work-related state of mind in normal individuals that is primarily characterized by exhaustion, which is accompanied by distress, a sense of reduced effectiveness, decreased motivation, and the development of dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours at work (Schaufeli and Enzmann[16]). Burnout is characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy (Barkhuizen[17], Jackson & Rothmann[18], Maslach et al[19]).

4 4 Exhaustion and cynicism constitute the core of burnout (Schaufeli [20]). Exhaustion represents the individual stress component of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001) and refer to feelings of being overextended and depleted of emotional and physical resources, i.e. incapable of work performance because all energy has been drained. In the development of burnout, exhaustion emerges first in response to an overly demanding work environment (Leiter [21]). Cynicism entails a general indifferent, callous or cynical attitude towards the work. To manage excessive job demands and feelings the individual psychologically withdraws from the work (Maslach et al., 2001). Professional efficacy refers to an individual s negative self-evaluation of competence, achievement and productiveness, as well as feelings of insufficiency (Schaufeli & Buunk[22]). According to Lee & Ashforth[23] and Schaufeli, professional efficacy is the unnecessary or least specific dimension or weakest burnout, Cordes & Dougherty[24]; Shirom[25], argues that it is a personality characteristic rather than a genuine burnout dimension. Seiler and Pearson[26] explain that the consequences of burnout comprise of two forms of withdrawal: the employee may resign (physically) or the employee may remain in employment but may be psychologically withdrawn from the work. Burnout is a result of job demands and lack of job resources, can direct the negative results such as illness, employee turnover and absenteeism (Maslach, Jackson and Leiter[27]). Burnout can cause several mental and physical health problems (Lee & Ashforth, 1990), which increases absenteeism (Leiter & Harvie)[28] and decrease quality and quantity of work performed (Blix, Cruise, Mitchell & Blix,)[29]. Individuals may also leave their job as a result of burnout (Jackson & Simpson[30]). 1.4 Evolution of the concept Engagement Empirical studies have revealed that some employees exhibit high job demands and long working hours and find pleasure to work hard (Nelson & Simmons[31]; Schaufeli & Bakker[32]). Then, the concept of Employee Engagement has emerged and several empirical studies authenticated them. Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker(2002) defined Employee Engagement as: Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state, Engagement refers

5 5 to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behaviour. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption, is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work [33]. According to Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, it was proved and found that Engagement concentrates on health and well being rather than ill health which is a symptom of burnout[34]. Most of the authors and researchers identified, Work Engagement is opposite of burnout. Engaged employees are energetic, have emotional & intellectual bonding and like to face challenges Two dissimilar schools of thought exist on the relationship between work Engagement and burnout. The first approach of Maslach and Leiter(1997) assumes that Engagement and burnout constitute the opposite poles, burnout representing the negative pole and Engagement the positive pole[35]. Engagement is characterized by three dimensions like energy, involvement and efficacy. Maslach and Leiter (1997) define burnout in terms of three dimensions that is exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy, in case of burnout, energy turns into exhaustion, involvement into cynicism, and efficacy into ineffectiveness. Accordingly, vigor is considered opposite to exhaustion and dedication is considered as opposite to cynicism. The vigor and exhaustion are labeled as activation or energy, whereas dedication and cynicism are labeled as identification (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2001). According to Maslach and Leiter (1997) the opposite scoring pattern on the three aspects of burnout as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Jackson & Leiter)[36] implies work Engagement. This means that low scores on the exhaustion- and cynicism and a high score on the professional efficacy scale of the MBI is indicative of Engagement. It is significant to note that both Work Engagement and Employee Engagement are opposite poles and perfectly negatively correlated. When an employee is not burned out, this

6 6 doesn t mean that he or she is engaged consequently when an employee is low on Engagement, this does not mean he or she is burned out. When they are measured with the same questionnaire, the relationship between both constructs cannot be empirically studied. For this reason different authors define burnout and work Engagement and they should be assessed independently (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2001). An employee who is not burned out may score high or low on Engagement, whereas an engaged employee may score high or low on burnout. 1.5 Work Engagement vs. Workaholism Generally people have a wrong notion that work Engagement and workaholism are one and same. In short, work Engagement can be discriminated from workaholism (Taris, Schaufeli, & Shimazu, in press)[37]. Workaholics spend huge time in work activities, they are hard workers. They always think about their work even when they are not at work. This proved that workaholics are forced to do work and they are compulsive workers and they are addicted to work (Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker[38]; Scott, Moore, & Miceli[39]). Engaged employees work hard (vigour), involved (dedicated), and feel happily engrossed (absorbed) in their work. As workaholics are forced to work which leads to ill health, reduces happiness, weakens interpersonal relationships in the organization. (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, in press)[40]. 1.6 Relationship of Employee Engagement with Other Constructs Employee Engagement can be distinguished from other related constructs Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement Job Satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one s job or experience (Locke and Henne)[41]. It is positively related to organizational commitment, job-involvement, organizational citizenship behaviour and mental health. It is negatively related to turnover, perceived stress and pro-union voting (Kreitner and Kinicki)[42] but the relationship of job - satisfaction with performance is weak (Ostroff)[43]. Gubman [44],[45],[46] describes Engagement as a heightened emotional connection to a job and organization that goes beyond job- satisfaction. The Gallup survey items tap evaluative constructs traditionally conceptualized as satisfaction facets, including resource availability, opportunities for development, and clarity of expectations. Perhaps even more directly, some

7 7 practitioners (e.g., Burke, 2005) measure Engagement as direct assessments of satisfaction with the company, manager, work group, job, and work environment characteristics [47]. Although there may be room for satisfaction within the Engagement construct, Engagement connotes activation, whereas satisfaction connotes satiation. (Erickson)[48]. Generally researchers ask employees in satisfaction surveys, to describe the working conditions which may be relevant for assessing the conditions that provide for Engagement, where we can t directly tap Engagement. According to Blessing White[49], Engagement is obtained by the maximum job contribution and maximum job satisfaction. Erickson, Macey and Schnieder[50] defined Engagement is beyond satisfaction, commitment and loyalty towards employer Organizational Commitment and Employee Engagement It refers to the degree to which an individual identifies with an organization and is committed to its goals. It is directly related to voluntary turnover. Researchers like Wellins and Concelman, [51] explains that Engagement is a combination of loyalty, ownership, commitment, and productivity. McCashland[52] found that both the terms Commitment and Engagement are interchangeably used. Most of the researchers defined Employee Engagement as an emotional and intellectual bonding with the organization. (Baumruk[53], Shaw[54], Richman[55]). Joo and Shim[56] have identified the antecedents of organizational commitment as personal characteristics and job characteristics as well as organizational characteristics Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) and Employee Engagement Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is discretionary behavior which is beyond formal obligations. It reduces friction, increase efficiency and effectiveness of the firm, and lubricate the social machinery of the organization (Podsakoff, Mac Kenzie and Bommer)[57]. Robinson, et al and Wellins & Concelman)[58] explains that there are certain features of OCB which are part of the Employee Engagement Job Involvement and Employee Engagement Lodahl & Kejner[59] define job involvement as the degree to which a person s work performance affects his self-esteem. They also opine that employees who are highly concerned

8 8 about their jobs exhibit high involvement and commitment towards their organization. Bass [60] defined Job involvement as where an employee vigorously participating in their job. Wellins and Concelman (2004) identified job involvement is a part of Employee Engagement. Engagement is closely related with Job involvement (Brown)[61]. Harter et al.[62] found that Engagement is the combination of both involvement and satisfaction. Review of literature indicates that job-involvement is an integral part of Employee Engagement but not its complete synonymous, as an employee may be engaged due to reasons beyond one s job and not merely because of it. 1.7 Measuring Work Engagement Many efforts are made to measure Engagement at individual level. These individual-level scores can be aggregated to measure Engagement at the organizational or work group level as well. Leading international business consulting companies have developed their own methods, tools and processes for measuring work Engagement. Some of the consulting organizations include Blessing White, Gallup, Hewitt, Sirota, Towers Perrin, Valtera, and Watson Wyatt Worldwide. One of the most popular methods in this area comes from the Gallup Organization (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes[63], 2003; Harter & Schmidt[64], 2008). The Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA) helps to measure Employee Engagement at business level. Results of this work have generated a Gallup questionnaire and published several books (Rath[65]; Rath & Conchie[66]; Wagner & Harter[67]).Basically we have three scales to measure burnout and Employee Engagement, They are Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and the Job Demand- Resources (JD-R) model (Maslach, Maslach and Jackson[68] and [69], Demerouti et al[70], and Schaufeli et al[71]) Maslach-Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) It was developed by Maslach-Burnout Inventory model (MBI). The MBI model was initially developed to measure burnout of individuals who work with coworkers (Schaufeli and Bakker[72]). The model was defined as a three-dimensional syndrome, which included exhaustion, cynicism and (lack of) professional efficacy (Maslach and Jackson, 1986; Schaufeli

9 9 et al., 2002 and Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Exhaustion measures fatigue without referring to other people as the source of one s tiredness. Cynicism reflects indifference or a distant attitude towards work in general, not necessarily with other people. Finally, professional efficacy encompasses both social and non-social aspects of occupational accomplishments. Maslach and Leiter[73] consider burnout and Engagement to be the opposite poles of a continuum that is entirely covered by the MBI. Low scores on exhaustion and cynicism, and high scores on efficacy are indicative for Engagement. The MBI is therefore adopted for use outside human services and the new version was called MBI-GS (Schaufeli et al) [74] Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) The second measure of Engagement as a psychological presence is the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), which was later shortened to 9 items (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Burnout and Engagement are opposite concepts, but that should be measured independently with different instruments. Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). The theoretical analysis identifies activation, ranging from exhaustion to vigor and identification, ranging from cynicism to dedication. Burnout is characterized by a combination of exhaustion (low activation) and cynicism (low identification), whereas Engagement is characterized by vigor (high activation) and dedication (high identification) Job Demand-Resources (JD-R) Model The third alternative of burnout and Engagement is the Job Demand-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001, and Bakker & Demerouti[75]). The model indicates that job demands (i.e. physical demands, time pressure, shift work) are associated with exhaustion whereas lacking job resources (i.e. performance feedback, job control, participation in decision making, and social support) are associated with disengagement. Using this model a new German questionnaire was developed the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) which includes both core dimensions of burnout (i.e. exhaustion and disengagement) that are conceptually similar to those of the MBI-GS (i.e. exhaustion and cynicism) was developed (Demerouti et al., 2001). Contrary to the MBI-GS, both OLBI-dimensions are measured by negatively phrased items as well as by positively phrased items

10 Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement Flow chart 1.1: Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement Antecedents of Employee Engagement Job characteristics Psychological meaningfulness involves a sense of return on investments of the self-inrole performances (Kahn, 1992). According to Kahn (1990[76], 1992[77]), psychological meaningfulness can be achieved from task characteristics that provide challenging work, variety, allow the use of different skills, personal discretion, and the opportunity to make important contributions. This is based on Hackman and Oldham s [78] job characteristics model and in particular, the five core job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) Perceived organizational and supervisor support Two variables that are likely to capture the essence of social support are perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS). POS refers to a general belief that one s organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger)[79]. Kahn (1990) identified that co-workers support, trust, superior support promote psychological safety which motivates the employees to experiment new things. The basic premise of organizational support research is SET. According to Social Exchange Theory (SET), if employees are provided with enriched, challenging & unique jobs then they exhibit

11 11 higher levels of Engagement. Perceived Supervisor Support build a friendly relationship between employers and employee which create motivating and innovative environment. Lack of support from supervisors, lead to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001)[80] Rewards and Recognition Kahn (1990) reported that people vary in their Engagement as a function of their perceptions of the benefits they receive from a role. Maslach et al. (2001) also suggested that lack of rewards and recognition can lead to burnout and appropriate recognition and reward is important for Engagement Distributive and Procedural Justice The safety dimension identified by Kahn (1990) involves social situations that are predictable and consistent. While distributive justice pertains to one s perception of the fairness of decision outcomes, procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means and processes used to determine the amount and distribution of resources (Colquitt[81]; Rhoades et al[82]) Consequences of Employee Engagement Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences (Locke & Henne)[83] Organizational Commitment (OC) This also differs from Engagement where as OC refers to a person s attitude and attachment towards their organization. Engagement is not an attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of their roles Intention to Quit Intention to quit includes basically the reasons why employees are going to quit the job, and what factors made the employee to leave the organization. The engaged employees do not frequently quit the job.

12 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) OCB involves voluntary and informal behaviours that can help coworkers and the organization whereas Engagement focus on one s formal role performance rather than extra-role. As mentioned earlier, that there is a relationship between Employee Engagement and business results (Harter et al.)[84]. 1.9 An Overview on Researching Employee Engagement After an extensive research, it is concluded that there is no universal definition of Employee Engagement so far. A significant research was carried out by Kahn (1990).. To gain further understanding of the varying levels of attachment individuals expressed towards their roles, Kahn (1990) examined several disciplines and it was found that psychologists (Freud)[85], sociologists (Goffman[86], Merton[87]) and group theorists (Slater [88], Smith and Berg[89]) had all recognized the idea that individuals are naturally hesitant about being members of ongoing groups and systems. As a result they seek to protect themselves from both isolation and engulfment by alternately pulling away from and moving towards their memberships (Kahn 1990). Kahn (1992) defines Engagement as people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances. The cognitive aspect includes working conditions, superiors behavior, belief about the company. The emotional aspect includes how employee feels about organization, working conditions and superiors. The physical aspect includes how the physical energies exerted by employees to accomplish their responsibilities and roles. Kahn also defines Personal disengagement refers to the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances (p. 694). Thus, according to Kahn (1990, 1992), Work Engagement is characterized by a high level of energy and strong identification with one s work.

13 13 Macey and Schneider[90] documented the proliferation of various definitions of Engagement, many of them being old wine in new bottles. Kahn initiate his work with Goffman (1961) explains that, people s attachment and detachment to their role varies. Kahn argued that Goffman s work focused on fleeting face toface encounters, while a different concept was needed to fit organizational life, which is ongoing, emotionally charged and psychologically complex (Diamond and Allcorn)[91]. Inspired by the work of Kahn (1990, 1992), Rothbard[92] defined Engagement as a twodimensional motivational construct that includes attention. Generally definitions and measures often sound like Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Robinson et al) [93]. Frequently it has been defined as emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Baumruk[94]; Richman[95]; Shaw[96]) or the amount of the discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank et al.)[97]. Truss etal [98] define Employee Engagement simply as passion for work. Kahn found that there were three psychological conditions associated with Engagement or disengagement at work: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. May et al [99] identified meaningfulness, safety, and availability were significantly related to Engagement. An alternative model of Engagement comes from the burnout literature, which describes job Engagement as the positive antithesis of burnout, noting that burnout involves the erosion of Engagement with one s job (Maslach et al 2001) Employee Engagement Models It was highlighted that from an employer s point of view, Engagement is often about employees going the extra mile or exerting discretionary effort. It was also found that many of the factors that drive Engagement are under the control of the organization. However, employees will place different emphasis on the extent to which they value each of these factors in exchange for their discretionary effort. This section therefore examines the models of Engagement Gallup Model of Engagement

14 14 Harter, Schmidt and Keyes[100] proposed a model of Engagement that is strongly influenced by Maslow s [101] hierarchy of needs. If the organization provides basic needs (i;e; facilities, materials and equipment)for the job obviously employees perform better in their job. After this, employees must feel that they are contributing for the organization development, provide opportunities to utilize their skills, timely rewards and recognition and constructive feedback (Harter et al., 2003). In the next level, employees need to feel a sense of belongingness by cordial relations, friendly relationships and participative decision making. Finally self-actualization can be attained their continuous growth and opportunity to utilize their skills. Harter et al.(2003) finally concludes that when all the above factors combine together, employees become highly engaged. Flow chart 1.2: Gallup Model of Engagement (Based on Maslow s [1970] Hierarchy of Needs A two-dimensional view of subjective well-being A two-dimensional (2-D) model of affective experience is based on the circumplex model(e.g., Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert[102], Larsen & Diener[103], Thayer[104]). According to this Circumplex model of emotions, Bakker and Oerlemans[105] positioned Work Engagement in the upper right quadrant found that employees who are engaged work with passion, happy, zeal, go extra mile for the growth of the organization (Parker & Griffin) [106]. Burnout can be positioned in the lower left quadrant, individuals who are burned-out exhibit bore, hard to work and they always want to relieve from work. In order to reduce burnout, organizations and employers should create a friendly environment where employees get motivated, energized and pleasure to work.

15 15 Flow chart 1.3: A two-dimensional view of subjective well-being (Russell, 2003) : Robinson et al (2004) model [107] Robinson et al (2004) model suggest that Performance Appraisal, Training, development, Equal opportunities, Communication, pay, fair treatment, friendly environment all these factors made employee involved and valued which ultimately leads to Employee Engagement. Flow chart 1.4: Robinson et al (2004) model of the drivers of Employee Engagement : Kahn s model of Engagement (2004) According to Kahn s[108] qualitative studies, examined the psychological conditions of personal Engagement and disengagement at work. Kahn identified that there are three

16 16 psychological conditions that people experience at work, particularly, meaningfulness, safety, and availability. The below diagram confirms that work role fit, job enrichment, supervisor relations, coworker relations, outside activities leads to three conditions i;e; meaningfulness, availability and safety which leads to Engagement. Flow chart 1.5: Path-analytic framework of Engagement (adapted from May et al. 2004, p. 25) The JD-R Model of Work Engagement (based on Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) [110] The JD-R model of work Engagement is graphically mentioned below. As per JD-R Model, Job and personal resources combined or independently envisage Work Engagement. When job demands are high, both job and personal resources have a significant and positive impact on Engagement. In turn, Work Engagement has a positive impact on performance.

17 17 Flow chart 1.6: The JD-R Model of Work Engagement (based on Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) 1.11 Factors influencing Employee Engagement[111] Studies have shown that there are some critical factors which lead to Employee Engagement. Some of them identified are as follows: Flow chart 1.7: Factors influencing Employee Engagement a. Career Development: When companies plan for career development of employees deliberately employees involve for the organization growth and development which increases Employee Engagement. b. Leadership:- The core values in the companies must be definite and clear, organizations must show respect for employee contribution regardless of their job. c. Empowerment:- Employers need to involve employees, particularly in their job roles by creating trustful and challenging environment. d. Equal Opportunities and Fair Treatment:- Organizations need to provide equal opportunities and fair treatment for all the employees irrespective of age, sex, race etc. f. Performance Appraisal:- Organization need to evaluate the performance of the employee by using different performance appraisal techniques which must be transparent.

18 18 g. Pay and Benefits:- Company should design a proper pay system which creates a balance between work and pay. h. Health and Safety:- Companies should use appropriate methods for the health and safety of the employees which increases Employee Engagement. i. Job Satisfaction:- Organization must concentrate on the job given to the employee matches career goals which motivate employee to enjoy their work and get satisfied. j. Communication:- Companies should follow both upward and downward communication to avoid miscommunication. k. Family Friendliness:- When an employee comprehend that the organization is considering family benefits increases Employee Engagement. l. Cooperation:- Employers should create a friendly and cooperative environment to innovate things increases Employee Engagement Employee Engagement Initiatives Some of the best Employee Engagement initiatives in the organizations are as follows Reward and Recognition Organization must aim to create culture of openness, transparency and meritocracy in case of rewards and recognition. The recognition must be on the spot, so that employees feel happy and engaged. The organizations must provide different career opportunities like career progression, job rotation and internal job postings to enhance Employee Engagement Training Training is an important component of Employee Engagement. Organization must train employees through cross functional teams, innovative workshops and collaborative teamwork which boost employees to develop their skills and come up with innovative thoughts for individual and organizational growth Feedback Constructive, regular and immediate feedback from superiors helps the employees to rectify their mistakes and engage them continuously in their job

19 Engagement at the time of induction Employee Engagement must start from day one with a work, welcome employee by displaying his name on the notice board, so that he feels proud. The organization must arrange lunch with superiors as the employee feel that he is significant to the firm and he engages more in the organizational growth Communication It is one of the vital components of Employee Engagement. Organization must communicate company s goal, vision, performance, achievements and competitors strategy by top level executive which creates zeal and enthusiasm as they feel that everything is transparent in the firm. Organizing family parties & meetings and felicitating the top performers in front of their family is the common practicing phenomenon in the industries which enhance Employee Engagement Fun at Work and Celebration of festivals and other events It is one of the common practices in organizations to relax and make employees happy with various games, competitions and sports involving them and their families. Celebration of different festivals and other national events like Republic and Independence day helps the employee to enhance Engagement level in the organization by creating fun at work Factors contributing for Employee Engagement [112] 1. Meaningful work 2. Match between employees abilities and the mission of the organization 3. Participative decision making 4. Appreciation from supervisors 5. Involve employees in reward system 6. Direction of the organization must be clear to the employees 7. Faith, confidence and trust in leaders 8. Support from superiors

20 20 9. Learning and development activities in the organization Advantages of Employee Engagement [113] Better Workplace Performance Enhanced Levels of Innovation Lower Attrition Higher Customer Satisfaction Company Profitability and bottom line Success 1.15 Reasons for High Levels of Engagement 1. Employees who work with encouraging employers, good image in the society regarding the organization, employee involvement in all aspects which increase high levels of Engagement. 2. Managers and executives have higher Engagement levels as they involve in decision making. 3. Employees who have a personal development plan and receive annual formal performance appraisals have significantly higher Engagement levels than those who have not. 4. Companies with higher quality of work environment (Opportunity for career growth, culture of support and openness) tend to have higher profits and business success leads to high Engagement levels. 5. Holbeche and Springett (2003)[114], argue that high levels of Engagement can also be achieved in workplaces where there is a shared mission and vision 6. Saks (2006)[115] opine that employees engage themselves by providing tools, equipment and available material to perform their job in effective manner.